Talk:Theodore Lukens/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Wizardman  23:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey. To start off with, I'm concerned about the structure of this article in general. The way it's split feels rather odd for a bio article. It starts off by pointing out different aspects of what he's done (reforestation, etc.) However, there's no chronology to it, especially considering that early life is near the end.

What I could do is read it through, and if it makes sense despite this, then I'll continue. Otherwise, it's a possible fail as is. For a start, at least move early life first. Wizardman 23:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Wizardman. First, thank you for taking on this review. Second, the first version of this article was in the traditional chronological order, and after reading it, felt it was "flat"-just a list in prose form of what he had done in his life. This version is structured in a news story style, with the most important aspects first to the least at the end. What is "most important" is entirely a subjective decision on my part, I admit.
 * Being that the article has a non-traditional structure, I would understand completely if you decide to fail the article. Marcia Wright (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright. Well, I'll do a full review of the article to note whatever issues there are so they can be fixed, though i may still fail the article. Wizardman  15:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a few extra notes to look at:


 * Typically, the ideal for GAs and FAs is at least one citation per paragraph, with of course anything controversial being cited. There are many paragraphs without cites.
 * All quotes need to be cited. Most are, but I found a couple that weren't.
 * Avoid one-sentence paragraphs, as they disrupt an article's flow.

It's a very nice article, but the citation issues combined with the structure lead me to fail the article. What I would do is fix these issues, put the article up for a peer review, then bring it back to GAN; it should pass fairly easily at that point. (IMO cite adding is a lot easier to do than prose issues, and your prose is perfectly fine) Wizardman  17:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your time and comments. Marcia Wright (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)